memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Hathaway
Separate ships Is it necessary to split the Hathaway into three separate ships? 1) Starfleet ships have been shown to have long service periods. 2) The Constellation class is still active in the 25th century. 3) The Hathaway has already returned to service, and we have no indication that the ship in The Red King or Wildman's posting are separate vessels. Kind regards, -- Markonian 14:30, November 7, 2015 (UTC) :It is necessary. We generally max out at 100 years for ships and the Hathaway was laid down in the 2270s and commissioned in the 2280s. It was noted to be decommissioned and a wreck in Peak Performance and then shown to be one of the wrecks pressed into service in Redemption. There no logical expectation that the 100 year old ship was pressed into further service after that, as Picard noted his fleet was rag tag and the admirals didnt expect him to be able to get those ships running at all. The fact that the possibility is noted in the background note addresses your concerns. -- Captain MKB 14:39, November 7, 2015 (UTC) ::I tend to agree with Admiral Markonian's line of questioning, but as there is no conclusive evidence either way, this is just my opinion. The (logical) assumption that the original Hathaway was eventually decommissioned/wrecked/whatever is one I can get on board with, but there have been precedents where long-decommissioned ships have been upgraded and pressed back into service - see: , , & . As to treating the latter two mentions of a USS Hathaway as two distinct ships, I am of the opinion that this is unnecessary speculation as there doesn't appear to be any evidence for this (and, yes, I concede that there is no evidence to the contrary, either). Just my two pence. -- Cyfa (talk) 16:55, November 7, 2015 (UTC) ::There is no conclusive proof that the Constellation-class Hathaway was replaced by a new ship of that name. That is merely unsubstantiated assumption on your part. And simply declaring that no ship stays in service longer than 100 years doesn't quite work here, either. After all, who is to say that at least the ship mentioned in TTN isn't the same as the one mentioned in STO? That looks to me like a split of convenience, just so you can have one page subtitled as "24th century" and one as "25th century" and avoid the hassle of coming up with a fitting subtitle for a combined page. Just merge it all back into one page, please. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:13, November 7, 2015 (UTC) The arguments of both you make sense. Imho, the most conservative solution is go with the source, which only ever speaks of the Hathaway without implying it's a new one. That the ship may have been decommissioned and replaced would be a sufficient background notice. Again, this is my personal opinion, and I will not interfere. Sooner or later a source will probably shed light on this. Also, thanks to both of your for replying. Kind regards, -- Markonian 17:13, November 7, 2015 (UTC) ::Unless a source provides concrete evidence the already decommissioned Hathaway was brought back into service, the article cannot, should not and will not be merged. We still require sources here after all. -- Captain MKB 15:07, November 8, 2015 (UTC) :::I have found no source that stated that the Constellation-class Hathaway was actually decommissioned after TNG's "Redemption". And just because she had been deactivated once before doesn't neccessarily imply that she was decommissioned again. - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:54, November 8, 2015 (UTC) :I think you need to review the source you are apparently ignoring just to be argumentative, "Peak Performance" -- it soundly established that the ship was not intended to be brought back into full service. Picard's statements in "Redemption" simply show specifically that -- the ships he chose for his fleet were not intended to be brought back into service except on the emergency basis shown in that episode. -- Captain MKB 19:04, November 8, 2015 (UTC) ::Right then, I shall hold off on the point of the "original" Hathaway until I've had a chance to review those episodes. Now, why two successors? the first one mentioned in TTN would have been in service before 2379, but no earlier than 2368. The second one was active by 2398 until at least 2401. 33 years is still well within the 100 years limit. Why make the assumption that it's two separate ships instead of the same one? - Bell'Orso (talk) 22:18, November 8, 2015 (UTC) :The passage between the later TNG-DS9-VOY era and the STO era is a distinct one -- it represents a passage between the Temporal Cold War era, the Borg era and the Long War. I dont understand why this is such an issue for you, as there are a great many other classes and ships that have been split because of the definite separation between those eras. the 25th century is almost a completely different kind of Star Trek and any separation of more than 25 years is more than enough to make the separation. :I'm following this distinction that has been used by other users creating ship articles. -- Captain MKB 00:14, November 9, 2015 (UTC)